|
|
Boost : |
Subject: Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-06 14:00:03
On Aug 6, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The problem is that flat_xxx take advantage of already implemented move semantics (insertions, etc.) from ::boost::container::vector. stable_vector has the same interface so it would be easy. The problem is to define the Concept (in post C++0x terms) flat_xxx::implementation should be based on.
I guess the obvious question is, does a vanilla c++0x vector fit the bill, and if not, what's missing?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk